Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs Balaji Fabricators

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. SR/309 & 298/NGP/2010 dated 21.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur)

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Appellant

Vs.

Balaji Fabricators K.K. Fabricators Respondent

Appearance:

Shri R.K. Das, Comm (AR) for the appellant Shri P.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for the respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of hearing : 13/05/2015 Date of decision : 13/05/2015

O R D E R No:..

Per: M.V. Ravindran:

These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the impugned orders passed by the first appellate authority, reversing the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority. Since both the appeals are raising the same issue, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Considered the submission made at length by both sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of the record, we find that the respondents herein were charged with non-discharge of service tax liability under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service for the work undertaken by them for one S.S. Fabricators. It is seen from the records and undisputed that S.S. Fabricators had issued work orders in favour of the respondent for fabrication of boiler column, tower assembly, inlet nozzle, outlet nozzle etc. on job work basis and paid them the amounts on the basis of work completed by them.

4. We perused the order of the first appellate authority and find that the first appellate authority has scanned the bill prepared by the respondent hereinabove which indicate that the respondent had undertaken the work on lump sum basis and not for supply of manpower. The first appellate authority was correct in relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Ritesh Enterprises 2010 (18) STR 17 (Tri-Bang) and reversing the order of the Adjudicating Authority. This view is affirmed by the bench in the case of M/s. Yogesh Fabricator vide Order no. A/996-997/15/STB dated 23.04.2015.

5. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the first appellate authority.

6. Appeals are rejected.

(Operative part pronounced in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

//SR

3